On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 10:35:12 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> In sci.physics appeared
> A Theory of All
> 12 views
> Skip to first unread message
> Subscribe
> 
> ju...@diegidio.name's profile photo
> ju...@diegidio.name
> 1:58 AM (8 hours ago)
> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 1:58:54 AM UTC-5, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:
> > For the record.
> >
> >
> > -------- Forwarded Message --------
> > Subject: Re: A Theory of All
> > Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 08:52:34 +0200
> > From: Julio Di Egidio <ju...@diegidio.name>
> > To: he...@itp.uni-frankfurt.de
> >
> >
> > Beginners questions and other bullshit all over the place, but Jacob
> > Barandes and foundations of physics is "overly speculative".
> >
> > And I could even understand that, sort of: but that you don't allow me
> > to reply to Tom Roberts and his filth is simply unforgivable.
> >
> > You are totally part of the problem and of no solution ever. Be ashamed
> > of yourselves, you fucking frauds and enemies of humanity.
> >
> > Julio
> >
> >
> > On 14/05/2022 17:14, Hendrik van Hees wrote:
> > > Unfortunately your posting to sci.physics.research is not appropriate
> > > for the newsgroup, because it is not entirely clear what the statement
> > > is about and also seems to be overly speculative.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Hendrik van Hees.
> > > sci.physics.research co-moderator
> > >
> > > On 14/05/2022 15:57, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > >> Hello everybody,
> > >>
> > >> This is a spin-off of a discussion in sci.logic. The mathematical
> > >> details should mostly be immaterial here, I am going to discuss a
> > >> specific idea and line of reasoning. Just one caution: I am not in
> > >> fact interested in the philosophy of physics, rather in
> > >> *foundations*, at which level I'd propose an "operational"
> > >> perspective might be all we need.
> > >>
> > >> ["Musatov's infinity", with minor amendments to the original:]
> > >>
> > >> On Friday, 13 May 2022 at 14:25:06 UTC+2, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > >> > [...] And here I'd propose that, in a properly infinitary theory
> > >> > as ours, there is a first "number" and that is omega, not zero.
> > >> > As the "fundamental leap" to even get started (indeed, universal
> > >> > quantifications "built-in").
> > >> <https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/BU608dm8t9o/m/BCzaSw06AgAJ>
> > >>
> > >> Now, thinking about "omega first" and what might change:
> > >>
> > >> Take this for example (from the "new-Platonic" approach):
> > >> << Given ontic random variables A and B, pA(a) and pB(b) may be
> > >> /incommensurable/, meaning there may not exist a physically accurate
> > >> joint probability distribution p(a,b) [...] If no joint probability
> > >> distribution for A and B [exists], then A+B and AB are no longer
> > >> random variables! [...] This is not about ontology, it's a matter of
> > >> epistemology! >>
> > >> <https://youtu.be/OmaSAG4J6nw?t=2205>
> > >>
> > >> But we could, and maybe should, given that a complex system is more
> > >> than the sum of its parts (!), reason in the opposite direction: a
> > >> system in a maximally entangled state simply has no parts. Namely,
> > >> first the system, then the parts!
> > >>
> > >> That may be hard to reconcile with our common understanding because
> > >> the two electrons whose spin is in the singlet state can in fact be
> > >> taken apart and acted upon individually. But of course a property is
> > >> not an object... rather and eventually (I think) the point is that
> > >> "non-locality" (in scare quotes as that itself may be upside down,
> > >> it's more "glocality", then possibly the subsumption of decoherence
> > >> and of the very inside/outside dialectic: and that's where I am not a
> > >> Platonist) has to be embraced at a fundamental level: together with
> > >> telepathy...
> > >>
> > >> A map is not the territory: unless the territory is the map. "On
> > >> outperforming meta-goedelization through short-circuiting
> > >> self-referentiality". A *Theory of All* has no no-go theorems, and
> > >> that a "theory of everything" does not exist.
> > >>
> > >> Anyway, that is my line of research and still a work in progress:
> > >> comments, references, questions and corrections are very welcome.
> > >>
> > >> Thank you,
> > >>
> > >> Julio
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Julio P. Di Egidio
> > >> http://julio.diegidio.name
> > >
> > > --
> > > Hendrik van Hees
> > > Goethe University (Institute for Theoretical Physics)
> > > D-60438 Frankfurt am Main
> > > http://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/
> A moderated newsgroup. Hard to tell when moderation stops and when fascism starts.
>
> I think the sci.physics.research needs the name moderated/fascist, instead of just moderated.
>
> I once tested sci.physics.research to see if a post of mine would make it there, into that newsgroup. Sure enough it never did as I expected. But the bloody waste of time in a moderated newsgroup. I mean the moment you feel you have a post ready, and to wait hours and hours and days to see if "it took". While with sci.math and sci.physics, the instant you hit "send", well, that is over and done with.
>
> The sci.physics.research is more aptly described as fascist/moderated rather than moderated/fascist. We liked to call it little tin badge Hitlers doing the moderation. Maybe that can now be upgraded to little tin badge Putins moderated.
>
> Anyone thinking of sending a post to sci.physics.research-- why waste the time-- has to be the only real question on anyone's mind.
>
> Even if my post some decades back, even if that test post had made it into sci.physics.research, I would not have used the platform for the simple reason of "time delay". When you have important science data or research, and the entire world is full of people, eagerly wanting credit for new data and science research, it would be horrible to lose out to someone else for the new discovery, all because you sent it to sci.physics.research which was delayed by several hours or days, lose out to someone else who had the commonsense to post it to sci.physics with immediate RECORDING of date time group of discovery.
>
> And this brings up the question of lawsuits on sci.physics.research, in the case of someone posting to that newsgroup that they discovered real electron is the muon, yet the fascist moderator not allowing AP to challenge the claim for AP discovered that the muon is the true real electron of Atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday Law.
>
> It is easy to envision some day that sci.physics.research becoming a "hotbed of stealing from others" and hiding behind a Fascist moderator.
>
> AP

And that brings up another question, of whether a moderator of a newsgroup can not only moderate and decide the fate of allowing or not allowing, but the question of whether a moderator can forge a post into a moderated newsgroup. For instance forge a post into sci.physics.research with a FORGED date time group. Claiming he discovered real electron is the muon, and messing with the date time group so that his stealing looks to be posted in 2001 of muon is real electron, while AP truly discovered muon as the real electron in 2016-2017 with thousands upon thousands of posts stating the idea.

You see, I am questioning whether a platform of moderated newsgroup sci.physics.research is easily turned into a Stealing Machine of science, and of course, the fascist-moderator in on the heist.

AP